United States v. Evans, 4th Cir. (2005)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TIAYON KARDELL EVANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-04-99)
Submitted:
November 30, 2005
Decided:
December 30, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Simon H. Scott, III, SAMS & SCOTT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, Sherrie S. Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tiayon Kardell Evans was convicted after a bench trial,
of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
heroin and cocaine base, two counts of distribution of cocaine
base, two counts of distribution of heroin, one count of possession
with intent to distribute heroin, one count of possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base, and one count of possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation
of
21
U.S.C.
841
(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(iii),
(b)(1)(B)(iii),
(b)(1)(C) (2000), and 18 U.S.C. 924 (c)(1)(A) (2000).
The
district court sentenced Evans to 240 months imprisonment.

On appeal Evans asserts the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress and denying his motion for judgment
of
acquittal
based
on
insufficiency
of
the
evidence.
After
thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm Evans conviction and

sentence.*
Evans
claims
that
the
search
warrant,
issued
to
investigate theft of power, was a pretense to search the home for

drugs.
He also argues that the police officers protective sweep,
during which the drugs were discovered, was overly broad.
This
court reviews the district courts factual findings underlying a
Evans has not raised a claim under United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), or Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). Indeed, he raises no challenge to his sentence. Thus, he
has waived review of the sentence.
- 2 -
motion to suppress for clear error, and the district courts legal
determinations de novo.
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,
699 (1996); United States v. Photogrammetric Data Servs., Inc., 259

F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir. 2001).
When a suppression motion has been
denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable
to the government.
(4th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547
In reviewing the propriety of issuing a search
warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the

circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for
concluding that there was probable cause to issue the warrant.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).
The facts presented
to the issuing judge need only convince a person of reasonable

caution that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at the
place to be searched.
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983).
After
record,
reviewing
the
we
conclude
that
there
was
substantial basis to find probable cause to issue the warrant.

The police officers entered the premises pursuant to a
valid
search
warrant,
and
during
discovered the contraband in plain view.
protective
sweep,
they
The officers obtained a
second warrant after seeing the contraband.
On these facts, the
court properly denied Evans motion to suppress.

Evans next claims the district court erred when it denied
his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of
the evidence.
This court reviews the district courts decision to
- 3 -
deny a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.

Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001).
based
on
insufficiency
of
the
evidence,
the
United States v.
If the motion was
verdict
must
be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most

favorable to the government, to support it.
States,
315
U.S.
60,
80
(1942).
Glasser v. United
[S]ubstantial
evidence
is
evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate

and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendants guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
In evaluating the sufficiency of
the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the
witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved contradictions in
testimony in favor of the government.
United States v. Romer, 148
F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).

After
thoroughly
reviewing
the
record,
we
find
the
evidence sufficient to convict Evans. Multiple witnesses testified

that Evans purchased and sold heroin and cocaine base, and also
carried a gun to drug deals.
In addition, heroin, cocaine base,
and a handgun were seized at Evans apartment.
Evans only attacks
the credibility of the witnesses, which we decline to review.

Romer, 148 F.3d at 364.
Accordingly we affirm Evans conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 4 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -

United States v. Evans, 4th Cir. (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Evans, 4th Cir. (2005)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Evans, 4th Cir. (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

November 30, 2005

December 30, 2005

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

(b)(1)(C) (2000), and 18 U.S.C. 924 (c)(1)(A) (2000).

district court sentenced Evans to 240 months imprisonment.

thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm Evans conviction and

investigate theft of power, was a pretense to search the home for

He also argues that the police officers protective sweep,

during which the drugs were discovered, was overly broad.

court reviews the district courts factual findings underlying a

Evans has not raised a claim under United States v. Booker,

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,

699 (1996); United States v. Photogrammetric Data Servs., Inc., 259

When a suppression motion has been

United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547

In reviewing the propriety of issuing a search

warrant, the relevant inquiry is whether, under the totality of the

The facts presented

to the issuing judge need only convince a person of reasonable

Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983).

substantial basis to find probable cause to issue the warrant.

discovered the contraband in plain view.

The officers obtained a

second warrant after seeing the contraband.

On these facts, the

court properly denied Evans motion to suppress.

This court reviews the district courts decision to

deny a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.

sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most

evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,

862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

In evaluating the sufficiency of

United States v. Romer, 148

F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).

evidence sufficient to convict Evans. Multiple witnesses testified

In addition, heroin, cocaine base,

and a handgun were seized at Evans apartment.

Evans only attacks

the credibility of the witnesses, which we decline to review.

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.